Day v. Sidley & Austin: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief | court = | citation = | date = <!-- example: "April 3, 1974" --> | subject = Business Assoc...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| followed = | | followed = | ||
| related = | | related = | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Facts''': P belonged to D law firm as a partner, but not a member of the decision-making executive committee. P was sole chairperson of D.C. office of firm. Law firm announced a potential merger, and told all partners they would be in better or as good condition after the merger as before. All partners voted to approve merger. After approval, P found that he would lose position of sole chairman, felt humiliated, and resigned. | '''Facts''': P belonged to D law firm as a partner, but not a member of the decision-making executive committee. P was sole chairperson of D.C. office of firm. Law firm announced a potential merger, and told all partners they would be in better or as good condition after the merger as before. All partners voted to approve merger. After approval, P found that he would lose position of sole chairman, felt humiliated, and resigned. | ||
'''Holding''': There was no breach of duty nor contract by D. | '''Holding''': There was no breach of duty nor contract by D. | ||
Revision as of 05:22, September 9, 2020
| Day v. Sidley & Austin | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | |
Facts: P belonged to D law firm as a partner, but not a member of the decision-making executive committee. P was sole chairperson of D.C. office of firm. Law firm announced a potential merger, and told all partners they would be in better or as good condition after the merger as before. All partners voted to approve merger. After approval, P found that he would lose position of sole chairman, felt humiliated, and resigned.
Holding: There was no breach of duty nor contract by D.
